Ex Parte Sokola - Page 3

                Appeal 2007-2096                                                                                  
                Application 10/611,765                                                                            

                different prior art.  Accordingly, we consider the record anew.  See In re                        
                Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).                                     
                       With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Buj discloses a plate with                     
                a statuette of a dolphin affixed to the upper surface of the plate, which plate                   
                differs from the claimed dinnerware article in the absence of a graphical diet                    
                reminder on the upper surface (Answer 3).  The Examiner finds Strandberg                          
                teaches a plate with a graphical diet reminder thereon directed to children;                      
                Frucher teaches a plate with a Passover Seder graphical diet reminder                             
                thereon; and Brenkus teaches a plate having a number of different shaped                          
                compartments for use in a method in which cards with indicia representing                         
                food choices are inserted into the corresponding shaped compartments                              
                (Answer 3-4).  The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one                           
                of ordinary skill in the art to add graphical diet reminders to Buj’s                             
                dinnerware as taught by Strandberg, Frucher, and Brenkus in the expectation                       
                of providing nutrition education with respect to food choices (id. 4).  With                      
                respect to claim 16, the Examiner contends it would have been obvious to                          
                modify the dolphin affixed to Buj’s plate with the likeness of a pig as a                         
                matter of design choice (id.).                                                                    
                       With respect to claims 17 and 18, the Examiner finds Buj’s dolphin is                      
                not hollow and Gruneisen III discloses a container that has a removable                           
                basketball on the lip thereof, wherein the basketball is hollow, has a bottom,                    
                and a removable top (Answer 4-5).  The Examiner concludes it would have                           

                                                                                                                 
                1  Our review of the official electronic record of the USPTO for this                             
                application reveals that Brenkus is not of record.  The Examiner should                           
                attend to this matter subsequent to the disposition of this appeal.                               
                                                        3                                                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013